Slow posting continues till mid-August...

82 comments:

Anonymous
said...

There is increasing evidence that a deal may be coming for the Traditinoal Anglican Communion. The TAC's "Messenger" site has been re-formatted and includes some interesting articles. Read especially "Churches in Communion?" by their Bishop David Chislett, S.S.C. Their Primate has, in the past, declined to suggest to Rome what structure a uniate TAC might take. Not any more. Suddenly, both he and Chislett are openly discouraging the personal prelature structure (thank God!), not mentioning the apostolic administration structure, and promoting the ritual church sui juris. Go to this link:

http://www.themessenger.com.au/News/20090721.htm#story3

Now skip the first half and start reading from here:

The publicity resulting from the article in the Perth Record led many people to conclude that what was being sought by the TAC is a "personal prelature," - a recently devised way of being Roman Catholic in which the clergy are subject, not to the diocesan bishop, but to another bishop somewhere else. Opus Dei is so far the only personal prelature.

In fact, the precise shape of what will work for us is still to be devised. As Professor Tracey Rowland points out in Ratzinger's Faith, her survey of Joseph Ratzinger's theological and philosophical thinking,

"When it comes to the more practical questions about the way of moving forward toward Christian unity, Ratzinger has stated that Catholics cannot demand that all the other Churches be disbanded and their members individually incorporated into the Catholic church. However, Catholics can hope that the hour will come when 'the churches' that exist outside 'the Church' will enter into its unity. They must remain in existence as churches, with only those modifications which such a unity necessarily requires. In the meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own to which they are legitimately entitled." (4)

Professor Rowland then outlines the approach of the TAC to Rome as a possible example of such a process beginning.

Some Roman Catholics and Anglicans, emphasising the Anglican tradition's origin within the Latin Church, do in fact confine their thinking to a personal prelature kind of sub-grouping. Others of a similar mind look for a more fully developed version of The Anglican Use as it exists in the USA.

Ecumenists can be found, however, who are quite adventurous in suggesting that the so-called "uniate" Churches in full communion with Rome offer the best model for Anglicans seeking an ecclesial future in full communion. These are ritual churches "sui iuris" - in other words, churches with their own rites, cultures and canon law. And although, as Archbishop Hepworth pointed out in his statement, "most of these rites are descended from ancient churches that have never been part of the Roman or Western rite",(5) leading English theologian Fr Aidan Nichols OP has publicly supported the uniate model as a viable model for an Anglican Rite Church. Indeed, seventeen years ago in The Panther and the Hind he explored what such an Anglican Church in full communion with Rome might look like:

"An Anglican church united with Rome . . . might be a church with a religious metaphysic drawn from the Cambridge Platonists, supplying as this would a doctrine of creation, and an account of the human being 'in the image and likeness of God', necessary to the theocentric humanism of any truly Catholic tradition; a doctrinal and sacramental ethos taken from the Restoration divines, with their stress on the inseparable inter connexion of Incarnation, Church and liturgy; and a missionary spirit borrowed from the Evangelical movement, and centred therefore on the universal significance of the Saviour's atoning work - the whole to be confirmed and, where necessary, corrected by acceptance of the framework of the Roman Catholic communion, including the latter's teaching authority to determine those many questions of faith and morals which, historically, have kept Anglicans divided. In such a way, numerous elements of the Anglican theological tradition 'classics', both as texts and persons - could find repatriation in the Western patriarchate, in peace and communion with that see with which the origins of English Christianity are for ever connected. Such an Anglican Uniate community might be relatively small in numbers, yet, provided with its own canonical structure, liturgical books, parishes, and means of priestly formation, it would enrich Roman Catholicism with its own theological patrimony, and - in the atmosphere of ecumenical detente which holds good in the West, though not, alas, the East, fulfil the role of 'bridge-Church' between Canterbury and Rome."(6)

More recently, in his paper Anglican Uniatism, Nichols says that the concept of an Anglican Church "sui iuris"

". . . would have to be presented prudently to the wider Catholic public. It can certainly be pointed out that the Second Vatican Council goes out of its way, in the Decree on Ecumenism, to give a special place to Anglicanism among the ecclesial communities that emerged from the Church crisis of the sixteenth century, and assurances that whatever is valid in the patrimony of Anglican worship, thought and spirituality, could be preserved in Catholic unity have been forthcoming, if in very general terms, from post-Conciliar popes. Places to look would be, for instance, the speeches of Paul VI at the canonisation of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales and of John Paul II on his visit to Canterbury Cathedral. St Thomas Aquinas, when speaking of the variety of Religious Orders in the Church, liked to cite the psalm which, in its Latin version, describes the Church as 'circumdata varietate', surrounded by variety. The pains and purgatories of the post-Conciliar period have taught us to treat 'variety' with some caution, since pluralism comes in two forms, the legitimate and the anarchic. But an Anglican Uniate body, defined with discernment and sensitivity, could I believe, join the ranks of the Churches sui iuris which give Catholicism an indispensable dimension of its plenary or holistic quality."(7)

It is clear that Rome is talking to a range of Anglicans at the moment. The TAC is merely the group out in front. Whatever form an "Anglican Church in full communion" might take, it will obviously need to be capable of drawing into its life waves of likeminded Anglican catholics from a variety of backgrounds and jurisdictions.

Let us continue to pray for those involved in the dialogue that they will have the gift of wisdom and insight in the consideration of what will one day be seen as a momentous and historic act of ecclesial reunion.

In the meantime, let us try to understand that at the most basic level the Catholic Church already comprises a range of "churches in communion," of various rites, and that most of the day-to-day work of the Holy Father is not in his role as pope and pastor of the Universal Church but in his patriarchal role in the Latin Church. The churches in communion (and their membership numbers in 2005) are: (8)

1. Tomorrow, 25th July, marks one full year since Rome sent its 'I got your letter' letter back to the TAC. It contained the Vatican's 'no policy' policy on High Church Anglicans having the nerve to bring order and decorum into the Catholic Church after Vatican II.

2. The TAC website was last week re-formatted to include a "Primate's Announcements" tab. In the first announcement, their Primate attributes the enormous recent growth of the TAC to divine providence. He's saying, in other words, that joining with Rome brings one God's approval.

3. The convention of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. has now ended and it voted in favour of sodomite blessings and welcoming buggerers to all ranks of its clergy, all in clear violation of the moratorium on such things agreed to by all Anglican churches in the Canterbury Communion only last year.

4. The conservative ACNA body has now made official (just this month) its break from the E.C.U.S.A. It is the 'thus far but no further' group of Anglicans.

5. The Synod of the Church of England, I believe, is now over.

6. Di Noia, O.P., has just been transferred from the C.D.F. and appointed titular Archbishop of Oregon City and Secretary of the C.D.W. Di Noia was put in charge of the TAC file at the C.D.F. His transfer likely signals that he's finished one stage of things and the focus might be more liturgical now. Since the TAC is coming out of a Protestant tradition, initially, its reunion with Rome would be a matter of doctrine.

I've also learned of one other bit if information but I judge it prudent not to publish it here.

All these signs point to a response by Rome to the TAC's proposal for "full corporate and sacramental union". Something tells me that Di Noia has whispered into Hepworth's ear that there's a done deal waiting to be signed. But the incoporation will likely occur during a transition period in which their liturgies and orders get sorted.

Interestingly, the TAC can no longer be classed as a Protestant body, since it has formally accepted all Catholic dogma without exception. I'm not even sure that we can call it schismatical any more, since its members clearly do not will separation of any kind from Rome. I suppose that we could say that they 'remain' in a state of schism but not heresy. But keep in mind that their Primate, John Hepworth, has told the Pope that the TAC will taketh whatever panzerpope giveth. That's not a schismatical spirit at work!

These TAC "bishops" of course, will be either re-ordained as Roman Catholic priests, or become laymen in any agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.

Thru re-formation/re-ordination they can certainly serve as priests (many former Anglicans/Episcopalians so), even if they are married.

But serve as Roman Catholic Bishops, or remain "bishops" of their own specific group? Leo XIII defined and declared that Anglican ordiation and "bishops" are invalid...and it remains so today, especially with regards to bishops. Not in a million years would Rome allow the leaders of TAC to act as, or refer to themselves as "bishops".

"Interestingly, the TAC can no longer be classed as a Protestant body, since it has formally accepted all Catholic dogma without exception. I'm not even sure that we can call it schismatical any more, since its members clearly do not will separation of any kind from Rome. I suppose that we could say that they 'remain' in a state of schism but not heresy. But keep in mind that their Primate, John Hepworth, has told the Pope that the TAC will taketh whatever panzerpope giveth. That's not a schismatical spirit at work!"

But their liturgy and books of religious service are all of the Protestant tradition, and will have to be changed to accomodate Roman Catholic tradition and belief. The most traditionalist or "High Church" Anglicans and Episcopalians, though usuing all the "bells and smells" of Roman Catholcism, still cling to the Book of Service which in it's roots is steeped in Protestantism, and Archbishop Cranmer in the 16th century.

Some people's enthusiasm for this union of the TAC is blind to very serious issues which nearly all Faithful traditional Catholics believe Rome will not simply let slide. These include the liturgical issues (which are many), and the issues of priestly ordination.And for real, the Vatican won't allow Anglican/Episcopal "bishops" to remain as such.Probably a friednly Roman Catholic Cardinal or bishop will be named as "Primate" or "Protector" of the group.

I hope the TAC can be brought in soon. As far as I make out, the problem is not doctrine, nor that they want to in maintain their liturgy with its (now rather insignificant) heretical influences, but that people worry what effect a union with the TAC might have on relations with the Anglican Communion.

I don't know if it's because the decision-makers are still deluding themselves that Canterbury might cross over corporately - which is simply not going to happen - or because they actually favour a state of perpetual 'dialogue with a sister church' over actual sacramental and doctrinal communion.

Meanwhile, real people are dying out there separated from the bosom of the Church!

On another note: For the first time since the liturgical 'reform,' a Scandinavian Bishop will celebrate Mass according to the rite of 1962.

His Excellency Bishop Czeslaw Kozon of Copenhagen has graciously accepted to celebrate Sung Mass in the Church of the Sacred Heart, Copenhagen, on the 2nd of August 2009. This is one of the regularly scheduled twice-monthly TLM's held in Copenhagen. Unfortunately it is not a pontifical solemn Mass due to lack of resources; Bishop Kozon is merely filling in for other priests who are on holiday or have other duties. But it is still an important step for the much beleaguered Church in Scandinavia.

Would you or anyone else happen to know what's up with the (Anglican) Diocese of Ebbsfleet. I believe it was about a year ago that their bishop announced he was seeking full communion of his Diocese with Rome.

And yet we've heard absolutely nothing since then.

Any updates as to how that is working out?

If you'd rather tell me privately, you may email me at esg[at]fsu[dot]edu

We have to keep in mind that many Anglican clergy today are in a different situation than those who were around at the time Leo XIII pronounced on the validity of their ordinations.

Since then, several Anglican ordinations were and have been performed by Old Catholic and/or Eastern bishops whose own valid ordinations are without question, and in a liturgical context which made clear that the ordinations intended to convey a "Catholic" rite of ordination. So this will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

It's amazing how so many Catholics on the right are no better than Protestant fundamentalists or Puritans when it comes to their approach to non-Catholic Christianity. Something is not inherently evil just because it happens to be the fruit of Protestant development.

I'm studying at Oxford for the summer, and have been availing myself of Anglican Evensong nearly every evening. There's nothing in the rite itself that is un-Catholic; you could have told me that this is simply an English recension of the Roman rite for Vespers-Compline and I would believe you! Much of the Anglican ritual is, one could argue, an organic development of the pre-Reformation liturgical tradition.

But then, development is not a concept understood by many who post on this blog, who think that Christ basically celebrated the Tridentine Mass at the Last Supper!

It's simply unrealistic, uncharitable, and even quasi-Manichean, to suggest that any corporate reunion with Anglicanism will have to result in the new converts having to renounce and abandon all 500 years of post-Reformation Christian development, and basically revert either to the Tridentine Mass, the Novus Ordo, or some fairytale notion of how things were in England before the Reformation.

Many thanks for posting these updates on the TAC and the link information. As one more sign of how they are viewing things, one will note that The Messenger contains many advertisements or side bar messages that are more Catholic than what one finds in many a diocesand paper here these days.

I know from a little bit of private communication that Bishop Chislett favors the uniate structure strongly (and they all have very well in mind the less than fully satisfactory Anglican Usage structure and its issues here in the US). I assume that publication of his article in The Messenger suggests that Abp Hepworth is signalling agreement.

The grouchy "Anonymous" mentions something called a Book of Services, which I have never heard of. I suggest one goes to the web site for Saint Mary of the Angels Anglican Church and access the form of Mass they use there; one will see it is substantially like the TLM. What's not to like?

"It's simply unrealistic, uncharitable, and even quasi-Manichean, to suggest that any corporate reunion with Anglicanism will have to result in the new converts having to renounce and abandon all 500 years of post-Reformation Christian development, and basically revert either to the Tridentine Mass, the Novus Ordo, or some fairytale notion of how things were in England before the Reformation."

It is not uncharitable to insist that those who seek union with the Roman Catholic Church profess faith in the Sacraments, traditions, doctrine, dogma, and liturgical tradition of said Church (in it's various Eastern or Western forms which are in union with Rome), and abjure the errors of their previous religious tradition and affiliation.Someone who converts from Christianity to Judaism would not still hold to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Nor would they still profess Christianity if they became alternatingly Buddhist, Sikh, or Muslim.Therefore, it's really a contradiciton in terms, and a gross violation of valid judgement not to expect the members of this TAC to both renounce the errors of their previous Protestant formation/ordination/liturgical traditon, and to accept the teachings and beliefs (including liturgical-meaning the present NO and the Tridentine Latin Mass), of the Catholic Church.The teachings of Protestantism (including Anglicanism) are entirely divergent from those of the Catholic Church. The positions of the Anglican Church of today especially (as well as 500 years ago), are entirely irreconcilable with the Roman Catholic Church. Just read about the USA Episcopal Church ( now down to less that 2 million and dropping!!!) has approved at their convention this week....gay bishops and blessings for gay/lesbian "unions"( a very dishonest way of saying "marriage").It is a grave error to equivocate, and to brush aside very serious errors in Protestantism (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and all the others), that recent 2-3 past Popes, scores of Cardinals, and thousands of liberal ecumenical priests, nuns and laity have done all in the name of "Christian Unity".

Christian Unity was up until 1962 thought of as the visible union of all baptised Christians in union of belief with the Supreme Roman Pontiff (the Pope) and his legitimate successors.

It was that way for 1,000+ years, and should be that way today.No accomodation for the TAC- or any other Protestant group- should be allowed for. It would be a betray of Catholic beief, and a repudiation of tradition to allow for otherwise.

As an outsider, it seems to me that the bishops and clergy of the Anglican Communion would take a dim view of having their orders declared invalid and basically being defrocked in any union with the Roman Church.

So,I submit that is a major stumbling block preventing any quick union of the Churches involved. It reminds me a little of the FSSPX not having canonical status nor faculties while in doctrinal discussions with Rome. Sorry about that, Peter, I just couldn't resist.

I think this TAC is living in a dreamworld if they thinkn that they are going to be admitted into union with the Roman Catholic Church "as is", or with little/no requirements.

It is possible that Rome will allow for the use of their liturgy, (in it's High Church form).

It is also rather insulting towards the Catholic Church, to insinuate that some don't want the TAC into the Catholic Church because they will bring in an order and decorum not existant in the Catholic Church.

With the ancient liturgical traditions of the Catholic Faith (Tridentine Latin Mass etc.)allowed much greater freedom, and gradually spreading in influence under the wise leadership of Benedict XVI, as well as a general growing for more sense of the Sacred and returns to tradition in the "Ordinary Form" of Catholic worship (Novus Ordo ) bringing a return in many places to a "sense of order and decorum", it is illegitimate , as well as insulting to suppose that the TAC entering the Catholic Church with their sense of liturgical "correctness" and "order", will influence and correct things in general.

The TAC, if admitted to the Catholic Church at all, will be a rather insignificant group except perhaps in the USA and G.Britian.

The reasoning behind Pope Leo XIII's rejection of the validity of Anglican orders in Apostolicæ curæ is not only based on the lack of Apostolic Succession (the existence of which has always been controversial anyway). It is the ordination rite of the Anglicans itself which is invalid: it was clearly purged of its essential Catholic elements and thus intrisically lacks the ability to confer the grace of ordination.

For that reason, it wouldn't matter if a hundred Old Catholic Bishops imposed their hands upon an Anglican; there would still be no ordination. Even if the Old Catholic Bishop employed his own rite of ordination to consecrate and Anglican (which I doubt has happened), the ordination would still be invalid because the Anglican would not have been validly ordained a priest beforehand!

Your reading of "traditional" ecumenism betrays a gross ignorance of a very complex history. This ignorance is not objectionable in and of itself (since we can't all be expert in everything), but it's self-demeaning when the one propounding it acts as if he really does know what he's talking about.

For starters, no one is disputing that members of the TAC need to seek and embrace full communion with the See of Peter. In this regard, they have been far more Catholic than MOST so-called "traditionalist" Latin-Mass sects.

Secondly, it simply isn't the case that historically the Church has demanded that heretics and schismatics must indiscriminately abandon all theological, liturgical, and devotional development which took place since their schisms, especially when such schisms were centuries old. Rather, the Church embraces non-Catholics the way she does non-Christians: She retains and sanctified whatever is good, true, beautiful, and otherwise not incompatible with the Faith, and puts aside all the rest.

The Eastern Catholics are illustrative of this. The Byzantine rite is NOT the same today as it was in AD 1054, it developed organically, even under schismatic auspices, and when these Churches reunited with the See of Peter, they were able to retain their developed liturgy, as well as MOST of the "post-schism" Saints.

It's also a well-known fact among hagiographers that SEVERAL saints who were technically Arian, Monophysite, or even schismatic-Orthodox have found their ways into the various Catholic calendars, with FULL permission by the Church universal. In the Roman calendar alone one will find the Martyrs of Najran (Monophysites), Saint Nicetas the Goth (an Arian), Saint Sergius of Radonezh (Orthodox), and several others.

Oh, and did I mention this was all "pre-Vatican II"?

This is exactly how the Church will, God willing, approach the TAC. Whatever is not incompatible with the Faith will be retained, the rest put aside. And it's nothing short of Manichean, let alone illogical and contrary to Catholic Tradition of evangelization and inculturation, to claim that something is intrinsically contrary to the Catholic faith just because it was "touched by" or produced by a Protestant.

We're Catholics, not Protestant Fundamentalists. Learn your history, or keep your comments to yourself before you make us ALL look like fools before those who are otherwise on the verge of reunion with the Holy See!

I agree completely with anon 15:10 it would not be good for the catholic cause to grant TAC et al any of their attitudes which prove to be of protestant origin. Their mass- simuliations may be impressive or pompous but at the end only doctrine matters.

I doubt that souls that have seriously and humbly embarked on the journey to Catholicism, as best they can within their universe, are going to Hell for lack of Confirmation if they die beforehand. Saints have said that catechumens have placed the care of their souls in the hands of the church from the time of their firm commitment, and Holy Mother Church, being the source of the delay, will not punish them for it. I suspect the departed of TAC will be given the same advantage.

"it's really a contradiciton in terms, and a gross violation of valid judgement not to expect the members of this TAC to both renounce the errors of their previous Protestant formation/ordination/liturgical traditon, and to accept the teachings and beliefs (including liturgical-meaning the present NO and the Tridentine Latin Mass), of the Catholic Church."

This is silly. First of all, the TAC people are mostly Anglo-Catholic Anglicans and are closer to traditional Catholicism than are most of the people who go to the Novus Ordo and don't know what transubstantiaion is (only 18% got it right on a survey in the U.S.A.).

The TAC people have accepted ALL Catholic teaching WITHOUT EXCEPTION and swore to this on the Catechism of the Catholic Church on their High Altar at Portsmouth. They have also made it crystal clear that they will accept whatever disciplinary norms the Pope cares to impose on them. I wish we could say that of Cardinals Baloney and Daneels.

On the liturgy, it is true that an Anglican 'development' cannot be said to be legitimate. However, the TAC people are not partaking of much development. They have mainly kept what was given liturgically some centuries ago. Their only development since that sad time has been to decline Protestant options in their liturgy. For example, they almost never include the very Protestant 'Exhortations' in their Communion Service; and most of them want to restore the Traditional Roman Offertory and Canon in their Mass.

It is true that some TAC texts will include prayers which, while open to a Catholic meaning, have a Protestant tone. I know for a fact that they want the Pope to correct that, and that they will welcome such a purification. They will certainly want to remove all those expressions which at least imply a Protestant theology. They've managed to avoid most of those all by themselves. There is no question that the TAC liturgies, as they have them, are more Catholic in tone and spirit than is the Novus Ordo Mass. So that is not a problem in itself. I note that the liturgies most of them use are more Catholic than the Anglican Use Mass approved by Rome in 1982 for eight former Anglican parishes in the U.S.A. So we have a precedent, dummy. We already have an Anglican Use Mass in the Catholic Church which is more objectionable than what the TAC now has.

Again, it is true that Anglican development of any kind is flawed in that it was introduced by schismatics and/or heretics who were therefore illegitimate. But while this is a fault, it is not a complete bar to accepting those parts of that liturgy (e.g. 95%) which comports with Catholic teaching and praxis in spirit (100% comports with it in theology). This is true owing to the operation of a higher law, which is the salvation of souls. Accommodating these non-Protestant Anglicans will achieve that in spades.

Frankly, these TAC people will be natural allies to traditionalists and will likely offer to let us use their churches for our Masses some day. They might even let the last poster in the door!

In closing, I'd like to clarify that some of my own ancestors were persecuted by Protestants in the U.K. Let's put that behind us now. I see lots of heresy and schism in NewChurch but none in the TAC.

I can see that some of the anti-TAC commentators are mostly ignorant of the situation. First of all, the TAC Anglicans are mostly Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, and they are more Catholic in thinking--by a country mile--than are most Novus Ordo NewChurchers. For example, a poll in the U.S.A. showed that only 18% of Catholics held to the correct teaching on transubstantiation; and it also found that a large per centage of the respondents didn't even know what transubstantiaion is. You won't find that in the TAC. There, you'll find Eucharistic adoration, Marian devotions, and all manner of Catholic life.

Secondly, the TAC bishops have accepted ALL Catholic dogma WITHOUT EXCEPTION, plus the entire content of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They swore this on its text itself, placed on their High Altar at Portsmouth, when all their bishops and ordinaries met. They are not Protestants and not heretics. Are they schismatics, then? Well, not by intent, only by circumstance, since they are asking for full "sacramental and corporate union". Schismatics walk out, they don't ask to come in. Knock, and it shall be opened to you, for the salvation of souls is the highest law.

Thirdly, they have also agreed to accept evey discipline the Pope would deign to impose on them. On the matter of married bishops, their Primate, who is married himself, has said publicly that, should married bishops not be accepted, he will instantly retire as a simply priest "and go fishing". His words, not mine.

Fourthly, in 1982, Rome approved an Anglican Use Mass and Office for a tiny number of Anglicans in the U.S.A. (now eight parishes) who wanted to become Catholic but retain their patrimony and traditions. The liturgy favoured by the TAC is more Catholic in ethos and tone than the one already approved by Rome as the Anglican Use Catholic Mass. It follows logically that, if the Anglican Use liturgy is acceptable as Catholic, then so is the TAC liturgy. Quod erat demonstrandum.

It is true that the TAC liturgy is illegitimate insofar as it is the work of heretics and/or schismatics. It was designed to imply Protestant theology (to a minor extent) and bear a Protestant tone. But the TAC people have mostly avoided the Protestant bits and all the bits they have are open to a Catholic meaning, so much so that we can say confidently that the Novus Ordo is much more Protestant in tone than is the Liturgy favoured by the TAC.

The TAC would like to purify its liturgy and remove any remaining passages which at most imply a Protestant theology. They hold back on this only for a logistical reason: they can't afford to alter their prayerbooks at this point.

No traditionalist Catholic should oppose the TAC's union with Rome. It is like complaining about the kitten scratching up the furniture in the study when the Novus Ordo elephant is destroying one's drawing room.

In closing, I clarify that many of my own ancestors were persecuted by Protestants in the U.K. Let's put all that behind us now. A union with the TAC will not be perfect in every way but this is overcome by the prospect of saving souls and ministering to those in need.

Someone asked about Evensong. My understanding is that the early Anglicans simply collapsed the Divine Office into three offices, called Morning Prayer, Afternoon Prayer, and Evensong. The middle one is not much used. In terms of content, they are almost entirely excerpts of our Divine Office but the content is shorter and they added a 'Litany' of their own.

For those who object to what they did, I point out that NewChurch did the very same thing (probably in emulation of them) in the 1970s: it reduced our beautiful Divine Office into that wreteched 'Liturgy of the Hours' piece of garbage we now have. Thank God "Summorum Pontificum" restored our old Office (as an option) as well as our Mass. The only difference between the Anglican fewer hours and the N.O. one is that theirs is beautiful and uplifting, whereas ours is dreary, banal, and disappointing.

I note secondly that the High Anglicans restored the full Office for monasteries and convents when they re-introduced these in the nineteenth century. So their secular clergy use the truncated three offices, whereas their monks and contemplative nuns have reverted to the full Office.

Hence the High Anglicans have moved Romewords in the last 150 years, whereas NewChurch has moved towards Canterbury. Interesting.

In terms of the content of their Offices, I am no expert on this but, from what I have read at a glance, there is absolutely nothing Protestant-looking there, (provided that one word of it in some countries' uses be removed). Really, it is all just a shorter version of our hours but in splendid liturgical English.

The Exhortations could be said immediately before the Sermon or during their Offertory as an option. They were mandatory only twice a year. However, the TAC has made them optional without exception in some places, while remvoing them altogether everywhere else. They're gone.

Obviously, I was not implying that the TAC is needed to bring such an order into the Traditional rites and disciplines of the Catholic Church. I was obviously referring to something completely unCatholic in spirit: the Novus Ordo. The N.O.M. was concocted by a committee of modernists led by a Freemason and assisted by six Protestant heretics. It has the odour not only of heresy but of impropriety.

TAC largest in the U.S.A. and U.K.? Well, the TAC does have an important following in the U.S.A. Its situation in the U.K. is very poor. For some bizarre reason, they don't even have a bishop there, only a vicar-general. They are tiny in England, mainly because most Anglo-Catholics are holding out in the Church of England until the last dog is hung. They are using delay tactics to keep the Church of England from following the Schorri Bitch in the U.S.A.

Someone asked about Ebbsfleet. Essentially, the Anglo-Catholic flying bishops have quietly backed down and gone back to their work in the Church of England. They are watching and waiting. If the TAC goes into Rome, they will hope to follow by joining the English branch of the TAC and adding 800 priests to the 15 it currently has! But they need to 'get sorted' the property problem: will the British Parliament let them have the ancient parish churches they are currently using? Yes, I think it will, for not doing so would only hurt politicians' chances for re-election. But that fight lies ahead.

But four-fifths of the TAC is IN INDIA. India is where the TAC really is, mainly because the Indian Anglicans are either co-operating with Canterbury or else buried now in a 'union church' with other Protestants. The TAC has ten dioceses in India now, organised into an ecclesiastical province. Their metropolitan is Samuel Prakash, truly an heroic man. I'd take him over Baloney or Daneels any day. I've read once that one of their Indian bishops lives in a one-room hut (it ain't Lambeth Palace) and gives absolutely everything to the poor. Better not let him in to the Catholic Church. We don't need that sort of devotion!

The main problem with the TAC is not its theology or its discipline or its liturgy or organisation--all these are acceptable, even if the the last three need improvement. Their problem is one of logistics and money. They simply don't have the cash needed to translate their coming Catholic liturgical books into the numerous languages they use, esp. those in India (Marathi, Bengali, Hindustani, Assamese, Tamil, Orissa, &c.). Fortunately, we Latin Catholics have at our disposal the world's largest translation service. It might be the one good thing to come out of Vatican II.

In these difficult circumstances, the best way forward would be for Rome to examine all their liturgical books in all the languages they use and then alter the absolute minimum necessary, so that penned-in changes would be all that is needed(as we did when we added St. Joseph to the Canon in 1962). Once they're in, we could then invite them to perfect and unify their liturgy for final approval by Rome.

However, I think you're a bit harsh when you note that all liturgical/theological development is illegitimate if it is done by schismatics. The liturgy and theology of the Eastern Catholic Churches, much of which underwent quite a bit of development in the "schism days" seems to be evidence that such is not the case.

It seems obvious to me that the Holy Spirit blows where he wills, and can effect good development even outside the strictly visible confines of the true church, if only to lead others into that church at the appropriate time.

As to Anglican orders, I was under the (mistaken?) impression that some of the ordination rites do make the intention to ordain sacrificial priests more or less explicit.

Of course, it's valid to ask how explicit such an intent must be.

Do we know for a fact that the EARLIEST ordinations of the church (i.e., first and second centuries) contained an express formula conveying the sacrificial nature of the priesthood?

Church history is almost always a lot more grey than the pop-apologetics or TAN-books triumphalist-history would sometimes lead us to believe, folks.

In other news,I note that the Pope has named a Coadjutor Archbishop of Jakarta,whose ordinary,Cardinal Darmaatmadja,was noted on Rorate-Caeli for his response to Summorum Pontificum:a prohibition of the TLM in his diocese,claiming that this served SP's goal of church unity.

I do not know how much of a change the new Archbishop will be,as he previously succeeded the Cardinal as Archbishop of Semarang,where he had been a diocesan priest.(On the other hand he will be the first non-Jesuit ordinary of Jakarta).

Cardinal Darmaatmadja has not yet reached 75(he will in December),but it seems likely he will leave his see rather young for a Cardinal,whether or not this is related to his anti-TLM sentiments.

I've had a look over at the TAC's non-Eucharistic liturgy (at least for Canada: it varies from place to place). I'd be interested to see what the Anglican Use has for this. Except for the subject of my comments, their liturgy here is completely acceptable; it is really just a shortened version of our hours, having such items as the Nunc Dimittis, Te Deum, Magnificat, and Benedictus. It's all Scripture and we can't fault them for quoting that!

Comments:

1. As in their Mass (ending their "Intercession"), that reference from Scripture to Christ as "our only Mediator and Advocate" must go, even though it has a perfectly orthodox interpretation (although the reference in their "Morning Prayer" is acceptable because it omits the "only"). It was clearly put there to imply that the angels and saints are not mediators. (The correct meaning of the Scipture passage is that Christ alone is our Mediator with God the Father; but the angels and saints and, above all, our Lady, are mediators with God in the Person of Christ.)

2. There needs to be inserted prayers for the Pope; and the Queen must no longer be called "Governor". The latter problem is probably already solved in the TAC, since the Queen is not Governor of the TAC!

3. The main problem in both offices is the penitential rite. There are no references to the intercession of Our Lady or the angels and saints. Far more serious is the omission of the act of pardon being bestowed by Christ in the person of the priest. This is also a problem in their Mass. I suggest a substitution of Confiteor, Misereatur, and, above all, Indulgentiam from the T.L.M.

I'm betting that most of these problems have been solved in the Anglican Use liturgy already approved by Rome, but the last one--the most important one--clearly has not.

I note that the N.O.M. is defective owing to the influence of the Protestants on this point. The Indulgentiam was removed in the N.O.M. precisely so that Protestants would not be offended by OUR Mass. Protestants, you see, have the 'minister' implore God's blessing, whereas, in the Catholic Church, in *addition* to that (we do it too: the Misereatur), Christ *imparts* pardons through the ministration of the priest.

So we can't keep them out on the grounds of this fault, since the VERY SAME FAULT is in the Novus Ordo. Nevertheless, I know that they would agree to the restoration of an Indulgentiam in their offices. Would that the liberal Catholic bishops did the same!

Report Back on the Pentitential Rite as used in the Morning and Evening Office of the Anglican Use, approved by Rome in the Catholic Church in 1982.

I've just popped over to the Anglican Use site to see how they handled this problem. On the PRINCIPAL POINT, they largely solved the problem, so that a form of 'Indulgentiam' has been restored; that is, they amended the Anglican form to restore a true pardoning by God through the priest. They made it Catholic.

In terms of form, what they give is sort of a mish-mash. It adds the needed Catholic terms "remission" and "absolution" but leaves out "pardon"; and it retains the Anglican terms "repentance", "amendemnt of life" and "consolation of His Holy Spirit" (no problem there). The form approved by Rome is acceptable but not ideal: it should include the term "pardon", as the T.L.M. does. This is especially important linguistically, given the rejection (as I recall) elsewhere in Anglican teaching of "indulgences and pardons". They don't like that word "pardon" and this dislike echoes an anti-Catholic tone. So I have inserted the term "pardon" in set brackets here to improve what the Anglican Use (approved by Rome) has:

"May the Almighty and Merciful God grant us {pardon}, absolution and remission of all our sins, true repentance, amendment of life, and the grace and consolation of His Holy Spirit. R. Amen."

There is one additional problem in this text approved by Rome. It is the pronoun and I don't like it oen bit! Never! It should not be "us" but "you": it is especially necessary here, given that these are former Protestants, to emphasise that the priest is imparting something from Christ to others and NOT to himself; otherwise, it has the flavour of a Protestant plea for forgiveness instad of a true granting of it throught the Sacramental power of the priest. (But, of course, the N.O. has this problem too. Antoher reason to reject the N.O. for the T.L.M.).

2. In other respects, I note that the Anglican Use offices are based on the American (1928) version of Anglican offices. No offence to my inferior Yankee neighbours but those cowboys just can't get liturgy right. It's just a fact that the English (1662) and Canadian (1962) versions are vastly superior to the American. You can see how, even in 1928, the Americans were desperately trynig to dumb down the beautiful wording of the old prayerbooks. Let's hope that the TAC will not permit this.

Still, the TAC does need to insert the A.U. Indulgentiam, preferably by adding in the term "pardon" and by changing the pronoun to "you": "grant you pardon, absolution", etcetera.

I can see the Modernist hand of Italian 'litugists' wreckovating the 1982 Anglican Use liturgy approved by Rome. They were trying to force on those former Anglicans the Protestant tone Bugnini forced on the Roman Mass of 1970!

More on the Anglican Use (Catholic) Penitential Rite of 1982, as used in their Morning and Evening Offices.

The other problem is that the beautiful wording of the Anglican plea for repentence is devoid of all references to our Lady and saints. Thomas Cranmer, their heretic first Archbishop of Cantuar, deliberately designed this. It needs to be undone.

So I would recommend at least an insertion (if not a substitution) of the T.L.M. Confiteor, Misereratur, and Indulgentiam here. What bothers me about the Anglican offices is their marvellous lack of reference to our Lady, as if she had never been born. Of course, Our Lady is present in these offices, but the Blessed Mother is very much in the background.

Again, all of this is acceptable for the purposes of easing reunion but Rome should form a commission to perfect these liturgical problems. Most, possibily all, of them could be solved after the fact. In closing, 95% of their Morning and Evening Offices are perfectly acceptable, most being simply quoations from Scripture.

You've resolved much of my concern about the TAC. Certainly it is without question that the issue of married bishops will not be permitted by Rome. That is very good that the Primate of the TAC commuity would agree to be just a simple priest. I wish some Roman Catholic bishops were as obedient.

Do you know of any more Anglican religious Orders perhaps moving towards Rome and the Vatican.The traditionalist All Saints Sisters of the Poor in Maryland, USA (about 22 members in USA) have left the Episcopalian Church and will be Roman Catholics as of September.I heard something about one other community likely to do the same in the USA. Are there any others perhaps in England?

No, I don't know of others in the future but I heard that another one in the U.S.A. came home to Rome last year. And then there were Franciscans of the Atonement, or something like that, a few years before that. I'm not sure if the latest batch joined the Anglican Use community or just adopted pure Roman practices.

The Anglican Use has withered on the vine. Its books were approved in 1982 or thereabouts, to my recollection, and the first of them came over shortly after that. They are treading water, starting with about eight parishes, they lost two or three but gained a couple coming over from Anglicanism. But they are confined to the U.S.A. Six of their eight parishes are concentrated in Texas, which is not a place I associate with Anglicanism, but there you have it.

"Do we know for a fact that the EARLIEST ordinations of the church (i.e., first and second centuries) contained an express formula conveying the sacrificial nature of the priesthood?"

I've seen that argument before and there is a simple response to it. It is not the formula or lack thereof which is solely crucial: a text cannot be separated from context. It's why Trent forbade Communion under both kinds: it the context of the time, both kinds might have implied a necessity.

Explicit formulas for the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, therefore, become mandatory when that nature of the priesthood, which had been assumed from the beginning, is explicitly questioned.

As regards Anglican ordination, my understanding is that the TAC clergy have mostly seen to it that they used a proper formula and had sound bishops to do it and a right intent. The problem is that some of them may have lacked an element, and that others transferred from other Anglican bodies where some of these elements are in question.

Given the complexities, the safest route would be conditional ordination for the lot of them, after ascertaining which can get which order. I note that that former Anglican Bishop of London got ordained sub conditione.

"Something is not inherently evil just because it happens to be the fruit of Protestant development"

Yes it is, when it destroyes Catholic traditon and belief.

Just look at the Novus Ordo.Even pro-Vatican II liberal experts have admitted that Protestants helped develope the Novus Ordo of Paul VI right after Vatican II, and that the Vatican incorporated elements of Protestantism into the Novus Ordo liturgy.

No, I don't know of others in the future but I heard that another one in the U.S.A. came home to Rome last year. And then there were Franciscans of the Atonement, or something like that, a few years before that. I'm not sure if the latest batch joined the Anglican Use community or just adopted pure Roman practices. "

The Franciscan friars of the Atonment became Roman Catholics in the early part of the 20th century (right before WW I). Their founder was Fr. Paul Wasson (d. 1940) who began the community as Episcopalian.The Atonment friars began as Roman Catholics very well, becoming a very orthodox, traditional community whose chief apostolate (among others), was to guide non-Catholic Christians back to the Holy Roman Catholic Church...not the ecumenical accomodation etc. we have of today. And they were very successful.The opened parishes, staffed retreat houses, ministered to the homeless in shelters, helped the alchoholics and addicts, taught traditional catechism, and had foreign missions.They went from a mere handful when they converted to Catholicism from the Episcopal Church, to over 300+ friars and close to 100 novices and seminarians by the 1950's and early 1960's.Unfortunatly right after Vatican II, they became a very liberal, ultra-ecumenical, and dissenting community, which they remain today.They went from close to 400 total members (friars, novices, seminarians) in 1962, to less than 100 members today.Today there are about 65 priests remaining in the Order, 35 brothers, and 1 candidate. The median age is in the mid 70's.They once had over 10 USA and 10 Canadian parishes, as well as missions and houses in England and Italy.Today, they have only 3 USA and 1 Canadian parish, no real foreign missions, and 2 overseas "ecumenical offices", 1 in England, and 1 in Rome. The house in Rome called "Pro Unione" has only 2 friars.They still push radical ecumenism with Protestants.In afew years, they will probably be extinct.There is a companion Order called the Franciscan Sisters of the Atonment (converted from the Episcopal Church at the same time as the friars), that is also the same type dissident, liberal USA Order and has about 150 aged members.

This destruction cannot be directly attributed to the defectively reformed Roman Missal.

Just look at the Novus Ordo. Even pro-Vatican II liberal experts have admitted that Protestants helped develope the Novus Ordo of Paul VI right after Vatican II, and that the Vatican incorporated elements of Protestantism into the Novus Ordo liturgy. ***

And yet it remains the case that for all its flaws, the Pauline Missal contains nothing distinctively Protestant, and much that no Protestant could ever accept. There are in fact no elements of Protestantism in the post-Vatican II liturgy, which nevertheless presents the lex credendi less effectively and not as completely as the traditional liturgy. (I will add that the abovementioned allegation that Bugnini was secretly a Freemason remains unsubstantiated and unverifiable. Not that Bugnini's liturgy can't be criticised without bringing in Masonic conspiracy theories . . .)

"I note that that former Anglican Bishop of London got ordained sub conditione.

PKTP, as far as I can make out that was a rare exception and only made possible because he could document that a Bishop of certainly valid orders (Old Catholic) had been involved in his priestly (as well as episcopal) ordination and that the rite used had proper matter and form and was conducted with proper intent. But perhaps some TAC clergy can provide the same sort of documentation for their preistly ordinations? That would be interesting, because it would render their ordinations at least dubiously valid.

Btw, PKTP, thank you very much for your insightful comments on the TAC.

Since you seem to have a very good grasp of the matter, could you also enlighten us as to roughly how many faithful the TAC comprises? Some media have bandied about a figure of 400,000 while others have dismissed that as grossly overstated.

It is indubitable that many of the changes in the N.O.M. were made to make the New Mass acceptable to Protestants. This was donw by removing aspects which are incompatible with Protestant theology. Perhaps the best examples are the removal of the Indulgentiam in the Penitential Rite (priests can't remit sins), the vast reduction of references to our Lady, the removal of references to angels and saints as persons one confesses to (Confiteor), Communion in the hand (Anglican: consider context), and, above all, alterations making it possible to interpret the Mass at not being a *propitiatory* Sacrifice (as opposed to a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise, and of ourselves).

Jordanes is right that there is nothing specifically Protestant added to NewMass, but the changes made make it far more acceptable to them. Indeed, if Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 is used and certain other options, it could pass for a Protestant service.

Would you please be so kind as to contact me privately? I am a member of the Standing Committee of the ACA's (TAC) Diocese of the Eastern United States and would be interested in discussing the TAC's matter before the Holy See.

Puh-leez... investigating the Vatican Bank scandal and related murders the Italian police seized the records of the notorious P2 Freemasonic Lodge and its membership roll, complete with names and code names, INCLUDING Annibale "Buan" Bugnini, author of the New Order of Mass.

They've said that the number is between 150,000 and 400,000. The number is hard to track owing to membership qq. in India. But now that two entire Anglican dioceses in India have joined them in just the past three months, plus several parishes in Central Africa, I'd estimate the number at closer to the 400,000.

I'd put the solid supporters of the S.S.P.X at about 500,000 but with a large potential in unserved areas.

Sure, the Italian police seized something (or so it would appear), but it's far from clear that it is evidence that Bugnini was ever a member of the P2 Lodge or that his code name was "Buan." There's simply no good evidence that Bugnini was ever a Freemason. Maybe he was, but it can't be proven. I'm aware, of course, that certain traditionalists claim all of the popes for the past century or more have been Freemasons.

Look, little Johnny turned all the tables in the drawing room upside down but nobody saw him do it. So daddy can't hit little Johnny. Right? Wrong. And if we needed a smoking gun to send a man to gaol for manslaughter, everyone would get off.

The question is whether or not there is reasonable evidence that Bugnini was a Freemason. Is there such evidence? Yes, there is. Is there sure proof? No, there is not. Is there evidence sufficient for us to form a reasonable opinion on the matter? Yes, there is. Is there enough proof to make a formal accusation against him? No, there is not.

What he did to the New Mass is, in itself, sufficient evidence so suggest that the man was a Freemason and a cryto-Protestant. I don't care if his codename was Buon. That's just a silly consideration. It's what he did to the Mass. He made the Catholic Mass into a liturgy which is Protestant and Modernist in spirit. I could name fifteen clear items in this regard without consulting anything. For instance, the addition of the extra Scripture reading to help shift the focus from Consecreation (Sacrifice) to 'the Word'; or the addition of 'quo pro vobis tradetur', in the future tense, to set the Consecration as past event looking forward to a temporal closure at Calvary (now there's how 'closure' *ought* to be used!). A fortiori, we might look at the Memorial Acclamation, an attempt to shift the emphasis from Sacrifice to Memorial, and we might look at the *new* 'msyterium fidei' in that Acclamation. No longer is it the miracle present right now on the Altar but the Resurrection or some other miracle. We also might look at the necessary removal of the Placeat Tibi at the end of Mass. It had to go because there were no alternate formulations for it in liturgical history, and it did the unthinkable: affirmed that the Sacrifice was propitiatory. The Protestants would not have accepted that and that was obviously the ONLY reason Bugnini, Freemason and cypto-Protestant and Modernist, had to abolish it.

We could even look at the removal of the most important priestly genuflexion in the entire Mass: the one between Consecration and Elevation. A Freemason would remove that because it points to the fact that our Lord is present as the Host, whereas a postponement of the first genuflexion to after the Elevation suggests that the people come first: Christ is primarly present in them.

Open your eyes! The man was a Freemason, a Prot, a Modernist. a length of rope and a trapdoor would have been too good for him, and our ancestors certainly would have burnt him at the stake.

NewMass needs to be abolished or at least reformed. While it does qualify as a Catholic Mass, it is Protestant in spirit. That needs correction. Desperately.

Sorry, but none of that constitutes evidence of his belonging to a Masonic lodge or secretly holding heretical Protestant beliefs. We need better evidence than inferences based on his erroneous views and attitudes towards the liturgy and allegations and assertions found on the internet.

If evidence seized by the police doesn't constitute sufficient evidence for Jordanes, what would be sufficient? We can justifiably describe Jordanes as "invincibly inconvincible." Not the first time he has made himself so either.

Cradle, don’t blame me that you’ve never provided any evidence to back up your claims, and that I don’t readily believe everything that somebody says on the internet. Before you could say that I am unconvincible on this point, you’d actually have to try to convince me. “Because Cradle says so” is not a valid or compelling argument.

How did this thread evolve into a discussion of how to convince Jordanes that Bugnini was a mason? Who cares what Jordanes thinks, anyway?

Those of us who call themselves traditionalists and that, by his own admission does not include Jordanes, know full well what the evidence so far reveals about Bugnini and, of course, since he is dead and buried, we may never know the full story.

So, let Jordanes believe what he wishes and we will do the same. Whatever he was, Bugnini did enormous damage to the Church and I suspect even Jordanes will admit to that. But, then again, maybe not.

Those of us who call themselves traditionalists and that, by his own admission does not include Jordanes, know full well what the evidence so far reveals about Bugnini and, of course, since he is dead and buried, we may never know the full story. ***

There are probably even those who don’t call themselves traditionalists who know full well what the evidence reveals and doesn’t reveal about Bugnini.

Whatever he was, Bugnini did enormous damage to the Church and I suspect even Jordanes will admit to that.

Jordanes simply overlooks the overwhelming evidence of the changes in NewMass. Only someone holding Protestant beliefs could have changed the focus of the Mass from Sacrifice to the Word AND have changed the focus from Sacrfice to Memorial AND have carefully omitted references to the Sacrfice as propitiatory. These differences are what make a Catholic Catholic and a Protestant Protestant. They are not small matters. They go to core of the religious division.

To this we might add the removal of the Indulgentiam, the effect of which is directly Protestant: Protestants can implore that God forgive us our sins (Misereatur) but they would rather die than allow the priest to DELIVER a pardon from God. The words granting PARDON, ABSOLUTION, AND REMISSION of all your [venial] sins and offences would be anathema to any Prot. That's why it had to go. Duh!

Similarly, Protestants would consign anyone to Hell for confessing one's sins to angels and saints or to our Lady. That's the reason for that omission in the new Confiteor. If the reason had been merely æsthetic, the saints could have been grouped together and not mentioned as individuals (i.e. Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, St. Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist), the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul). He could have changed it to I confess to Almighty God, Blessed Mary, ever-Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters.... But, no, that was not adequate. The references had to go entirely because, to Prots, to confess to anyone but God alone is the ultimate blasphemy.

It is true that Bugnini could have gone further and removed references to angels and saints in the second part of the Confiteor (in which we merely ask for their prayers) but he no doubt could not get away with that.

Jordanes sees only what he wants to see, or, it seems, doesn't see what he doesn't want to see. It's true that someone who was not a cryto-Protestant and a Freemason could have made those changes. It's also possible that I will be killed by a meteorite in the next ten minutes. We are allowed to believe on the grounds of probability what clear evidence indicates and there is no such thing in this world as absolute proof. Had Bugnini confessed to Freemasonry, he could later have retracted the confession and said that it was only a joke; or perhaps his identical twin made the first confession. Blah, blah, blah.

With that kind of evidence, you could level the same accusations against almost any Catholic, no matter how orthodox. Sorry, but you just can’t use such considerations to establish that a person formally belonged to a Masonic lodge. While is it plausible that Bugnini and the Consilium made those unnecessary and regrettable changes in order to Protestantise the liturgy, there are other plausible explanations that don’t require us to insist that he had secretly apostasised, and God commands us to construe a person’s actions as charitably as possible. In the absence of solid evidence, we are obliged to avoid all such allegations. It’s more than enough to criticise the stupidity and deleterious effect of the Bugnini reforms. We have no need for the secretly-wasn’t-even-a-Christian hypothesis.

Since the TAC is coming out of a Protestant tradition, initially, its reunion with Rome would be a matter of doctrine.

I've also learned of one other bit if information but I judge it prudent not to publish it here.

Peter,

Did you mean to tease us with these words and are they in any way related to the FSSPX? Or, am I reading too much into this?

By the way I really enjoyed your post describing how Bugnini "protestantized" the liturgy which could also be "masonized" the liturgy or humanized the liturgy. By their fruits ye shall know them, eh? Good show, ol man, good show!

"there are other plausible explanations that don’t require us to insist that he had secretly apostasised, and God commands us to construe a person’s actions as charitably as possible. In the absence of solid evidence, we are obliged to avoid all such allegations. It’s more than enough to criticise the stupidity and deleterious effect of the Bugnini reforms. We have no need for the secretly-wasn’t-even-a-Christian hypothesis."

First of all, we don't need to say that he formally apostasised. I suppose that you can be a Protestant and a Modernist without even knowning it. However, I think it too improbable that he was not a willing Modernist, at least.

Was he a Freemason? I consider that to be probable. The evidence from the Italian police merely adds to the evidence of how he made the Mass of the Catholic Church Protestant in spirit. Add to that his sudden dismissal and demotion to Iran immediately after Paul VI received reports that he was a Mason. Had these reports not been credible, would he have been excised? And the Pope did not just dismiss him from Rome but also disbanded his Consilium. That's more than a slap across the face with a glove full of cement, if you ask me. It seems that Paul VI believed him to be a Mason, even Jordanes has his doubts. True, Paul VI has access to information which Jordanes doesn't have. But I still judge the man to be a Mason. It's not as if we have only a wild accusation and nothing to substantiate it at all. Sure, in the case of a wild accusation, we must give a man the benefit of the doubt. But this guy could not have done more damage if his name had been John Calvin. Get real, Jordanes.

If you or others here want an answer and can promise on your word of honour (a word which always has a u in it) to keep your mouth shut, e-mail me privately at (no colon after a preposition, even at the end of a line)

What I would say to Jordanes in general is that the burden of proof needed to form a private opinino is not identical to that needed to lodge a charge at law. One may need more evidence to make a public accusation than to form a private opinion, and more again to charge someone. Even the law itself admits degrees of proof, which is why the definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is wider in civil law than it is in criminal law. It's why a certain Orange Juice Simpson was not convicted of murder and yet was found responsible for someone's death in a civil court.

Today, too many people have bought into the media lie that you need a criminal-law test even to hold the private opinion that it was little Johnny, that brat, and not his placid sister, who overturned all the furniture in the drawing room.

Now, Mr. Haley & others on this list might be interested in a consideration here. Many priests in the TAC use as their Eucharistic Liturgy the 'English Missal'. This is our Traditional Latin Mass but in liturgical English (written in the 19th century). On rare occasions, some of them do celebrate it even in Latin. A few of them even offer the Sarum Use Mass in Latin, which is our T.L.M. in a pre-Reformation English Use.

Now, let us suppose that the English Missal is admitted as a liturgy of a uniate TAC (under Rome); that is, they are granted a uniate ritual church which includes our Mass, whether in liturgical English or in Latin. Well, they then have jurisdiction to offer this Mass anywhere they have dioceses. They can even establish missions sui juris *outside* of dioceses (as they already have for Normandy, Argentina, and Switzerland), whether directly subject to their Primate or subject to one of their dioceses.

Hmm. So their priests would be able to offer our Mass in Latin--anywhere. They would also be able to invite our priests to offer our Mass at their churches and chapels and even rented halls--and this would fulfil the Sunday obligation. True, our priests would still be restricted de facto by the fear of being sent to diocesan gulags and de jure by Canon 905 (restricting how many Masses a priest can celebrate per diem).

But imagine the situation. The TAC priest will usually have a small congregation. For example, at their cathedral here in Victoria, staffed by about six priests, they only have one Sunday Mass for about forty people. There is nothing to stop one of their priests from offering us our Mass (and I know that one of them would love to, as a matter of fact).

Now, again, the TAC could serve the same function as the S.S.P.X: in order to prevent their authority from being circumvented in this way, many of our bishops will simply drop their obstruction of S.P. No bishop wants scores of his subjects to decamp to a uniate church for all the Sacraments! It makes it appear to the public that our bishops have lost control of their sheep: the sheep are turning their backs on the shepherd and wandering off to another fold! As Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, This is a diaster because, no matter how few these sheep really are, it is only APPEARANCES that count (truth counting for nothing).

This will not have quite the same effect as a reconciled S.S.P.X because the TAC is only present in certain countries. But it could work in the U.S.A., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa, and especially in India. It could even work in Japan! And it would work. Why? It's because the TAC is very small and NEEDS the support which our guys could bring them!

Just a thought. Of course, there is another side to this. The TAC, usually not having its own churches, will want to co-operate with our bishops in order to gain access to our churches. So the effect would be limited.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Such a situation would also make it easier for the Pope simply to recognise all S.S.P.X Sacraments.

Well, not necessarily formally, but when a Catholic joins the Freemasons, it amounts to a kind of apostasy, as Masonic religious indifference is incompatible with the Christian doctrine that Jesus alone is the Savior.

I suppose that you can be a Protestant and a Modernist without even knowning it. However, I think it too improbable that he was not a willing Modernist, at least. ***

Materially one can be a Protestant or Modernist without being one formally. But it is impossible to “materially” join a Masonic lodge without actually, officially joining it. You’re either a member of the lodge or you’re not. If all you are is friends with Masons, or sympathetic to Masonry, then that is what we should say you are. We shouldn’t say you’ve joined a lodge unless we know you have. With Bugnini, all we have is a story I’ve never been able to substantiate that he is identified in a P2 membership list under codename “Buan,” coupled with persistent rumors that the reason he was exiled to Tehran is that Paul VI had been told (and believed what he had been told) that he was a Freemason. Everything else is inferential based on the havoc he wreaked through the Consilium.

Add to that his sudden dismissal and demotion to Iran immediately after Paul VI received reports that he was a Mason. Had these reports not been credible, would he have been excised? ***

It’s probable that’s why he was exiled. I’ve little doubt that Paul VI believed the reports, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the reports were accurate.

And the Pope did not just dismiss him from Rome but also disbanded his Consilium. ***

Disbanded it too late . . . and yet he didn’t scrap the crummy work the Consilium had done. If only . . . .

What I would say to Jordanes in general is that the burden of proof needed to form a private opinion is not identical to that needed to lodge a charge at law. ***

Sure, but the burden of proof to sustain an opinion once formed, after it has been questioned, is higher than the burden of proof needed only to form the opinion. I’d just like to see some actual proof that the Italian police really did find Bugnini’s name in P2’s membership list. I’ve seen a list of notable Italians on that list (which was not, in fact, exclusively a membership list), but didn’t find “Bugnini” or “Buan” among them, but I’ve seen plenty of websites repeating the claim made by Cradle, never without any proof to back up the claim.

"But it is impossible to “materially” join a Masonic lodge without actually, officially joining it."

It depends how one defines a Mason. Suppose that one accepts all Masonic beliefs, some explicity and some implicity (for example) but never joins a Lodge. Is one a Mason? Well, in the sense of prinicples, one is.

Similarly, one could join a Lodge and not believe what one says one believes as a Mason. Are you then a Mason?

So, one can be a Mason in this formal sense too; or one can be materially 'Masonic' too.

". . . he was exiled to Tehran is that Paul VI had been told (and believed what he had been told) that he was a Freemason."

It's a reasonable inference, that's all it needs to be. Paul VI didn't exile him to Iran because he broke wind in the Clementine Hall. And if the reason were the changes to the liturgy, that would provide the excuse needed by then to ditch NewMass. So it was something else. Some rather high-ranking people alleged that it was Freemasonry. Seems likely to me. Likely enough to form an opinion, even if not likely enough to allege it as a fact in some criminal trial.

ArchDruid Rowan Williams, head of the Canterbury Communion, tried to have it both ways today:

"He wrote that "a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole," but suggested there may have to be a "two-track" model where the church allowed different viewpoints on certain issues.

He said there could be "two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out, but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion." He urged that such an arrangement not be spoken of "in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication."

Now what does 'communion' mean if not unity in doctrine, discipline, and prayer? It means only what you want it to mean; it means nothing. Williams will now try to repeal the law of non-contradiction. While he's at it, he might as well repeal the law of gravity as well.

The idea, of course, is that churches would not comprise all the faithful of a territory but all the people of a set of beliefs. These churches would then be in Communion with one another, presumably on the grounds that their disagreement is not adequate to prevent association (whereas the Bible tells us to dissociate ourselves completely from heretics and wipe off our very feet after leaving their houses). So the new conservative ACNA (Anglican Church of North America) would be 'in communion with' the liberal Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.

Similarly, in England, where the property of the ancient churches is held by the State, it could be shared by two churches of England. in place of the Leviathan arises a double-headed monster. The whole thing can benefit us, I suppose, because if two Churches of England can share the often mediæval bricks and mortar, then so can a TAC uniate church under Rome. In fact, it may become politically impossible to allow the two Anglican churches without allowing the third option.

Somehow, I think that the Arch-Druid's problem will be convincing the GAFCON and Global South conservative Anglicans in the Third World to play ball. They will be under pressure from their members not just to dissociate themselves for the Schorri Bitch, for example, but to declare publicly that she is the heretic we all know her to be.

The old Anglican solution was to agree only on essentials. The problem is that there are no essentials left.

On Bugnini: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is most assuredly a duck. Even though we are told it is not really a duck, our rational senses tell us something completely different.

Can our rational senses be deceived? Because of original sin, we would have to answer affirmatively. However, the Word of God and Christ Himself gives us some further criteria by which to judge, to wit:

“15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt, Chap 7, vs 15-20)

In my judgment, if we applied the aforementioned criteria to much of what has happened to the Church in the last 40 or so years, we'd be a lot better off.

Sure, it’s a reasonable inference. . . but it’s still not documentation that supports what Cradle has claimed about Bugnini’s name appearing on P2’s membership list. The claim isn’t just that Bugnini was a Freemason, or that he held Masonic views while never actually joining a specific lodge, but that he had joined the secret lodge Propaganda Due. I’d like to see evidence for that, or be directed to a good source for it. I'm beginning to suspect that there isn't any, or at least that people have been repeating this possibly true story without knowing themselves what authority there is for it.

On Fr. Scott's analysis, I will say, first of all, that this blog is way way too inadequate for me to set forth my objections to the Church's recent social doctrine. For well over twenty years, I have found it impossible to accept all of "Rerum Novarum". 95% of it is excellent; 5%, esp. the bit about redistribution of wealth and the so-called 'just wage', is poison.

I believe that Leo XIII tried to compromise with those subscribing to a prevailing economic tide stemmnig from the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, Marxism, and socialism. The concession in 1892 was small; the door was only opened a crack. It took a long time for the next papal encyclical to develop the bad part of R.N., which indeed is the part that got developed. There was nothing for 50 years but then an acceleration towards the Populorum Progressio and other socialist encyclicals. This progression was only possible, of course, after 1958.

But, again, there is no space to explain that here. Instead, I prefer to comment on what I think Benedict XVI is doing politically. It is part of the classic tit-for-tat strategy seen so often in government and the Church these days. The problem is that there are two large parties which have to be placated, the left and the right. If you anger either one too much, the result is disunity, schism, even open rebellion. So, to give to the party you favour, you must compensate by giving an consolation prize to the other side. This Pope wishes to solve the liturgical problem because he understands that this is the key to everything else, long term. But he needs to concede something to the liberals or he will face a massive revolution. Hence "Caritas in veritate".

The difficulty is that nothing satisfies the liberals. They hold the honest belief that 'history is on their side'. They have a sense of manifest destiny. They are 'on the side of history'. Since they cannot lose, they should not compromise. Ironically, it is they who have a sense of 'faith' these days, ironic because, at core, they do not believe in God, let alone the Catholic Church. You can see all of this in Barry Soetero (B.S.), alias Barack Hussein Osamma (B.O.).

During the last pontificate and in this one, the strategy is for the Church to be 'leftist' on economics and 'rightist' on moral issues. That analysis may be reductionistic but is still useful.

The Pope's strategy won't satisfy the liberals. But the good news is that, while the liberals may be growing in power in the secular world, they are declining in religion. Really, Catholicism and liberalism are completely incompatible, and the liberals are now becoming more and more aware of this. This makes the position of 'the right' stronger and stronger within the Catholic Church. We are becoming and larger and larger minority. In the end, the challenge will be (and already is) to defend Christianity itself against secular humanism.

It sounds like the TAC people want to be Anglican on the Catholic church's dime. Enough with the negotiations. Enough with the dilly dallying. Either get off the pot and become Catholic or stay where you are and whine some more.

If you don't know what you're talking about, there is always the option of remaining silent. I suggest that you show a bit more of that Catholic charity which we are all commanded to live.

The TAC people have been out in the cold for 475 years. They did not ask to be born into the situation in which they find themselves. They have something precious which they wish to retain for the good of all of us, not just themselves. Their liturgical tradition is a priceless cultural gem which should not be lost. It is on a par with the plays of Shakespeare. You don't just ditch that. That's why Rome has ALREADY granted an Anglican Use Catholic Mass for the benefit of only eight tiny parishes, all of them confined to the U.S.A. So John Paul II, who granted this, did not think as you think. He knew better. But the TAC, being much more than eight parishes, is asking for a ritual church like the Ukrainian one. It makes sense and Rome has not said otherwise.

In your comments, you act as if the TAC is holding out for something. This is rubbish. It is the Holy See which has been holding out, and for political rather than religious reasons. The TAC has formally accepted ALL Catholic teaching and its leader has agreed to give up married bishops if Rome demands that. So the TAC is not holding out one iota.

They have simply asked to ocme in corporately in order to preserve what is good and wholesome in their tradition. What could possibly be wrong with that?

It is the Holy See which has held out. Why? Only because the Holy See doesn't want to annoy the mainstream Anglicans, who are outright heretics (unlike the TAC). It is the Pope who has been dilly-dallying at the behest of the liberals in the curia; it is not the TAC which has been dilly-dallying. Why has Rome taken 22 months and has still not answered the TAC's simple request?

We now hear from Damian Thompson that Forward in Faith has gotten involved in talks with Rome. How I despise them. Why can't they just go away? Whereas TAC is fully Catholic in belief and has bent over backwards to take ANYTHING the Holy Father will give them, Forward in Faith is a disorganised group of pusillanimous Anglicans who can't decide what the hell they want. According to the story, the Pope has told one of their bishops, Broadhurst or someone (never heard of him) to talk to Cardinal Schönborn.

If Schönborn is in on this, then every liberal in the hierarchy must know all about it, and keeping quiet about things becomwes useless. After the way Schönborn treated the Pope in the Wagner Affair, you really have to wonder what the HELL is going on. What I'm wondering is whether or not Broadhurst has gotten involved just to throw a wrench in the works.

The good news is that Forward in Faith wants to have nothing to do with the TAC or with any arrangement Rome is negotiating with the TAC. That's good because the TAC should not want to have anything to do with Forward in Faith. FiF represents everything that is wrong with Anglicanism. These people think that, somehow, we can all have completely contradictory things. If they had been real Christians instead of the bunch of winps they really are, they would have had the balls to join the TAC the INSTANT the first woman was proclaimed to be priest. Instead, they've been slip-sliding all over the countryside, not sure what to do. Why don't they just shove their heads where the sun don't shine? We don't NEED people who can't adhere to principle for politican reasons.

I'm sick and tired of these people. The TAC people are people of PRINCIPLE. They have sworn to accept ALL CATHOLIC DOGMA WITHOUT EXCEPTION. They are on our side. These others idiots can't make up their minds what they want. I suggest that they get the hell out of our way. Once the TAC has made its deal with Rome, they can then decide if they'd like to sign on or do something else, like play tiddly-winks.

What really galls me about this Backward in Faith group in England is that it wants to have nothing to do with the TAC and yet wants to have a similar arrangement with Rome. What is Rome supposed to do? Is she supposed to create two ritual churches for two groups of Anglicans? What for?

The Forward in Faith people are only stipend-chasing neo-conservatives. They have stayed in the Church of England all these years as it went more and more heretical every day. Now they are trying to get away from Anglican liberals and yet hold on to their government stipends at the same time. How convenient.

Meanwhile, the TAC people, metaphorically speaking, left father and mother and brother and sister and children to follow HIM. They had the honesty to leave the Anglican ship of heretical fools in the 1970s and 1980s and they paid a huge price for doing so. They chose poverty so that they could continue working towards the day of reconciliation with the Vicar of Christ.

Now Rome prepares to let the faithful TAC sufferers in and up pops Forward in Faith! Hey! Look as us! We want in too! Well, I'm not opposed to letting them in but they'll have to wait in queue. Let's seal the deal with the good TAC people first and then, once it's settled, the Forward in Faith people can be allowed into the same structure under TAC bishops. They should not get their own separate deal. They don't deserve it.

If I had their tradition, I would want to safeguard it from the much more Protestant Novus Ordo singalong joke Mass.

They don't want to leave a beautiful tradtion to attend a clown Mass on a ship of fools.

What is wrong with a corpoate reunion, as long as the converts are prepared to accept all Catholic teaching? What's your problem? Groups of Eastern Christians have crossed over and were received as groups with traditions. True the parallel there is imperfect but it is helpful, I think.

If any Anglican wanted to convert and asked for my advice, I'd tell him to make sure there was a Traditional Latin Mass at a church near him, and to sell his house and move if not.

I strongly advise bloggers here to take a peek under "Primate's Announcments" over at "The Messenger" site. A new announcment was posted today and it includes a 'smoke signal' that a deal is near. I have sent a message to N.C. to request a separate posting for this. I am hoping that Jordanes might consider this as well.

Considering that the TAC and FiF have full intercommunion agreements, and the fact that these folks are identical in terms of faith and practice, it borders on insane for bishop Broadhurst to turn his nose up towards the TAC.

It is all just based on pride and turf. Nevertheless, in order to take ego out of the equation, it would be wise to have simply an Anglican-rite structure that will take all comers, regardless of jurisdiction in order to cast a wide a net as possible. The TAC understands this. It is a pity that bishop Broadhurst evidently does not.

A minor nitpick. You write, " In other respects, I note that the Anglican Use offices are based on the American (1928) version of Anglican offices."

Point of fact, the Anglican Use mass is based on Rite I of the 1979 BCP, which is a tangled mess for most of the same reasons of the Novus Ordo mass. There are only a handful of issues with the Offices from an Anglo-Catholic perspective, at least. You have addressed concerns about Our Lady and angels, but in addition, there are:

a) Psalm 95 is replaced with a mongrel Invitatory, the Venite.b) Evening Prayer, for reasons that elude me, has the Gloria as an Invitatory. We were already invited with Ps. 95 earlier that morning.c) Morning prayers following the Lord's Prayer and preceding the Collect are abbreviated to just a few versicles and responses.

Most clergy I know will, in their private recitations of the Office, fix each of these points. Nearly all fix b) in public.

So far as the 1928's problems go, I think it is far more ecumenical in the construction of its anaphora. The Epiklesis follows the words of institution, which makes our Eastern brethren happy, and the prayer of humble access follows the Eucharistic Prayers, strongly emphasizing that a change in the substance of the elements has taken place. Any of the forms would need tweaking here and there to be adopted, but I can't imagine anything theologically wrong with:

Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

Anglican Use's rite, following the '79 BCP, censors the last bit -- flesh and blood at a meal are icky, after all. Right?

I agree. I am just hoping that the TAC arrangement is settled very soon. Once it is settled, the FiF people will have to take in into consideration in one form or another.

There is a new smoke signal today fron the TAC Primate that a deal is coming. It's on "Year of the Priests" under "Primate's Announcements" on "The Messenger" site. The signals are now multiplying. For reasons I daren't publish here, I'll say that it will not happen this month, although an announcement may come this month. But I'd watch the skies in August.

Thank you for your input. While I have read all the texts at one point or another--and I do mean all of them--I am definitely not an expert on the A.U. From recent correspondence with TAC people, I get the impression that the A.U. is not liked at all. My main problem with the Mass for it is its adoption of that horrid N.O. Offertory. But I'd already mentioned that.

I think that any English Traditional Anglican Missal for the future would be wise, as well, to take into account the prayerbook uses of other Anglophone countries, particurly the Scottish prayerbook and the English one of 1662. The Canadian one is æsthetically interesting but theologically BAD, I'd say.

I'm more interesed in the Britsh Anglican Missal (the one published by the Society of SS. Peter and Paul in 1921 and NOT the American edn. which came later) and the English Missal of 1912. I have a copy of the former.

Being a Cannuck, I'm not all that interested in American Anglicanism, esp. since it is such a small body in the U.S.A. I note that most TAC parishes in the U.S.A. don't seem to use the Anglican or English Missals anyway but prefer the 1928 B.C.P., whereas those in England (and alsl those of FiF seem to prefer the English Missal. I think that the 1921 Anglican Missal, which I rather prefer to the others, is out of print.

I strongly advise bloggers here to take a peek under "Primate's Announcments" over at "The Messenger" site. A new announcment was posted today and it includes a 'smoke signal' that a deal is near. I have sent a message to N.C. to request a separate posting for this. I am hoping that Jordanes might consider this as well. ***

Thanks for the heads-up about this, Mr. Perkins, and thanks for your diligence in keeping us informed and in sharing insights and background into the Traditional Anglican Communion’s request for “full Eucharistic communion” with the Catholic Church. I haven’t had time lately to do anything more than moderate or post comments here, but I still would be open to composing a post on the TAC and the latest announcement to which you refer, except I do not feel confident enough in my grasp of the situation to be able to say anything helpful or even intelligent about it.